From: Tom Burgess <Tom_Burgess AT bc DOT sympatico DOT ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: testing uclock()
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:15:50 -0700
Organization: BCTEL Advanced Communications
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <33618176.377@bc.sympatico.ca>
References: <1 DOT 5 DOT 4 DOT 32 DOT 19970424124818 DOT 002d7ec8 AT ubeclu DOT unibe DOT ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pntn02m01-36.bctel.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


Roger Noss wrote:
> 
> I am trying to follow the many recommendations to use uclock() but am
> getting inconsistent results.  I am working in a DOS window of WinNT3.51 on
> a 200MHz Pentium Pro.

Don't have the answer, but a few observations:

	- printf of uninitialized t0 is puzzling
	- use of short ints on Pentiums is expensive (more CPU cycles)
	- Since uclock messes with the timer hardware, I am surprised NT
	  doesn't barf. Uclock has no error return code. Maybe uclock
	  just fails on NT and is returning garbage?
	- for best timing, should make sure dt[] is in cache before
	  using it to record results, otherwise cache misses will
	  confuse timing. Just clear it to zero or something.

	regards, tom